linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] acpi/processor: fix evaluating

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 11:12:51 +0100
From:   Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, jgross@...e.com,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>,
        Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] acpi/processor: fix evaluating _PDC method when
 running as Xen dom0

On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 06:06:26PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:37 PM Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 08:17:56AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On 12/2/22 04:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > On the implementation side, is the proposed approach acceptable?
> > > > Mostly asking because it adds Xen conditionals to otherwise generic
> > > > ACPI code.
> > >
> > > That's a good Rafael question.
> 
> Sorry for joining late, but first off _PDC has been deprecated since
> ACPI 3.0 (2004) and it is not even present in ACPI 6.5 any more.
> 
> It follows from your description that _PDC is still used in the field,
> though, after 18 years of deprecation.  Who uses it, if I may know?

I saw this issue on a Sapphire Rapids SDP from Intel, but I would
think there are other platforms affected.

> > > But, how do other places in the ACPI code handle things like this?
> >
> > Hm, I don't know of other places in the Xen case, the only resource
> > in ACPI AML tables managed by Xen are Processor objects/devices AFAIK.
> > The rest of devices are fully managed by the dom0 guest.
> >
> > I think such special handling is very specific to Xen, but maybe I'm
> > wrong and there are similar existing cases in ACPI code already.
> >
> > We could add some kind of hook (iow: a function pointer in some struct
> > that could be filled on a implementation basis?) but I didn't want
> > overengineering this if adding a conditional was deemed OK.
> 
> What _PDC capabilities specifically do you need to pass to the
> firmware for things to work correctly?

I'm not sure what capabilities do I need to pass explicitly to _PSD,
but the call to _PDC as done by Linux currently changes the reported
_PSD Coordination Field (vs not doing the call).

Thanks, Roger.